Understanding Juvenile Justice in India: How the Law Treats Minors in Conflict with the Law under the Juvenile Justice Act
0
5
0
AUTHOR : SUZANNE JACOB
Abstract
Justice for children adopts a more caring perspective than adult justice, which focuses on the child's best interests rather than punishment. For example, juvenile justice in India is based on the concept of rehabilitation. Protection and development are the goals of the juvenile justice system, and punishing the child for wrongdoing does not fall under its objective. The foundation of the juvenile justice system is in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which has tried to evolve to meet global childcare standards. The article will analyze the Indian juvenile justice system, particularly how it responds to minors in conflict with the law and promotes rehabilitation as a means to assist them in becoming responsible citizens.
Historical Background
Historically, the treatment of children who commit offenses in India was nearly indistinguishable from that of adult offenders, which had devastating consequences for their individual development and chance of rehabilitation. At the beginning of the 20th century, the emphasis slowly appropriately shifted to welfare models, informed by developing global perspectives on child rights. This turning point was seen in India’s acceptance of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1992. Under the UNCRC, there was an expectation for a child-friendly justice system which revolved around rehabilitation and social reintegration. This shift in international perspective informed the enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ) which was amended in 2006, 2011, and with the most significance in 2015, to attenuate to the pressing needs of society and its faults.
Principles of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, is built on principles which frame the administration of the entire system including:
Principle of Best Interest of the Child: All decisions made should be in the best interest of the child (well-being and development).
Principle of Dignity and Worth: Every child is treated with dignity and respect.
Principle of Participation: Gives a child the right to express their views in matters related directly to themselves.
Principle of Fresh Start: Supports every child should have their records expunged in a concerted effort to effect social reintegration.
Other important principles include:
Principle of Equality and Non-discrimination
Principle of Restoration and Repatriation
Principle of Diversion: Suggests alternative procedures to normal judicial proceedings where appropriate.
These principles, when combined, constitute a safeguarding platform for children in the justice system.
Definition of Child in Conflict with Law (CICL)
At the core of the Act is the clear definition of a "Child in Conflict with Law" (CICL), being any person who is below the age of eighteen years and is alleged or found to have committed an offense. Basically, it separates them from adults due to their various developmental stages as well as the need for a different legal response. Above all, the Act moved away from the derogatory term "juvenile delinquent" to "child in conflict with law," a term more indicative of a rehabilitative spirit. The change of terminology is significant in that it reveals a sense that a child who acts wrongly frequently does so as the product of adverse circumstances and is deserving of an opportunity to be corrected and remitted.
Legal Process for Children in Conflict with the Law
The legal process for children who are in conflict with the law (CICL) under the JJ Act is intended to be child-friendly and not adversarial in nature. When the police apprehend a child, they are required to notify their parents or guardians and bring the child before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) without delay and within 24 hours of the apprehension (travel time does not count towards this limitation). The JJ Act specifically prohibits those practices that may negatively affect children such as handcuffing or marching children in public.
The JJB does not function as a regular court and is an institution designed to provide a child-friendly atmosphere. Although, it has the same powers and authority as a court, which includes the ability to summons or direct children to appear in front of it to inquire about an alleged offense. Members of the JJB are specially trained to inquire into the alleged offence, child background, social milieu and mental health/conditions. During this process, the probation officer is expected to prepare a social investigation report, and the child shall have the benefit of legal aid and representation.
The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) can issue a variety of orders beyond sending a minor to a care home. This includes sending a child to a Special Home or Observation Home or providing other options such as counseling, community service, remaining with a trusted person or place, and in some cases, providing compensation for financial restitution of the victim. The goal remains to assist the child in reforming and reintegrating into society.
Supporting Institutions
In addition to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), the juvenile justice system relies on various other organizations to provide care and rehabilitation. Observation Homes provide temporary accommodation and safety to children at the inquiry stage, Special Homes are for children who need long-term care. Both types of homes provide education, vocational training as well as programming designed to rehabilitate children. Aftercare Organizations assist children after transitioning out of those settings to help them fit back into society and prevent re-offending.
Amendment for Heinous Offenses (2015)
One important feature of the 2015 amendment to the Act is that juveniles who are between the ages of 16 and 18 who are accused of heinous offenses can be tried as adults after a preliminary assessment has been conducted by the JJB about their capacity and understanding. The 2015 amendment emerged from a need for responsiveness to public demand but is controversial as it could lessen the rehabilitative nature of the system. However, the intent is only to use it in special circumstances with precautions in place.
Notable Cases
The following two high-profile cases reflect the issues of juvenile justice in India, and the difficulties in actually seeing juvenile justice policies and law in practice.
The ‘Nirbhaya’ case (2012) involved a 17-year-old accused who was convicted of rape and murder, who received a sentence of three years at a reform centre. This raised national conversations about if current law was sufficient with respect to the age of criminal responsibility, the need for continued harsh punishments for serious offences committed by juvenile offenders, and whether the rehabilitation and reintegration services were a sufficient response in instances of serious offending. The case had an immediate impact on amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act, which included punitive measures, but also recommendations for better rehabilitative options, including counselling, education and vocational skills.
The more recent 2024 Porsche car crash case involved a 17-year-old under the influence of alcohol, who crashed and killed a person. The order of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) granted bail subject to various conditions including duties, such as having this minor write an essay about "road safety." The order was eventually revoked following tremendous backlash, and from the serious nature of the offence the JJB took the decision to revoke the bail and remand the minor to a Children Observation Centre. This seventeen-year-old minor was ultimately charged and released under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under the Indian Motor Vehicles Act.
Challenges in the Juvenile Justice System
Although the system is intended to be reformative, there are several problems within the juvenile justice system in India. In many places—particularly rural areas—there are delays in processing the cases due to a lack of staff and resources. Observation and Special Homes are often neither adequately resourced nor staffed to ensure meaningful rehabilitation of children. In addition, social stigma creates barriers to integrating children back into society. The 2015 amendment, which permits juveniles between the ages of 16 and 18 years old to be treated as adults in cases of serious offences, is still contentious. Additionally, the discussion around the 2015 amendment and its feature of atrocious crimes remains a discussion with advocates calling for a child-centred practice to be implemented.
Conclusion
The juvenile justice system in India, through the statutory guidelines of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, is a solid step toward a welfare and rehabilitation-focused agenda for children in conflict with the law. There remain certain implementations, and certain aspects continue to be contentious, but there are all aimed at true understanding of the reasons behind their (the child's) offending behavior, together with reaction that involves adequate support, proper assistance and opportunity for a new beginning, with an eye to their future development and integration as responsible and productive members of society. Reform as needed, and as well as adequate resources, and its implementation, are of critical importance in order to assist and enable it to reach its full potential as an essential piece of legislation.
